<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04pakistan.html?ref=asia[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04pakistan.html?ref=asia</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So who saw this one coming a mile away?</p>
<p>scary indeed</p>
<p>“The U.S. said it was disappointed and called for Musharraf to restore democracy. However, the Pentagon said the emergency declaration does not affect U.S. military support for Pakistan and its efforts in the war on terrorism.”</p>
<p>I’ve said for about the last four years that Afghanistan was more of a serious problem than Iraq was before we invaded and that Pakistan is a more serious problem than Afghanistan. Only we aren’t about to invade Pakistan. Let’s see, what other tools has our dimwit Fearless Leader left in his problem-solving toolbox…</p>
<p>Dimwit idiots indeed. Osama is executing his strategy perfectly. He needs a country. What better country than Pakistan? With a ready made nuclear weapons. All he needs to do is to keep the idiots distracted and busy in places other than his back yard.</p>
<p>And who in the US is the Chief Idiot??</p>
<p>I have long said that people have underestimated the danger of Pakistan. Itchy fingers with nukes…there’s a scary thought.</p>
<p>Itchy fingers with nukes, combined with itchy generals who might go rogue.</p>
<p>Hopefully, this’ll pacify itself soon enough. Considering the U.S. relationship with Pakistan was one of George “Fearless Leader” Bush’s foreign policy highlights, wonder what FP positives he can emphasize now…</p>
<p>This really scares me. My sister and BIL are working in Islamabad.</p>
<p>I don’t exactly remember the details, but I think it was Stratfor (a private intelligence, they claim) stated that a war with India would be the best think for Pakistan in case of a war. They reason that it would unite the country (Pakistan) and provide a much needed stimulus for Pakistan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, very scary citygirlsmom</p>
<p>Current US philosophy allows for the US President to take control. Unitary Presidency.</p>
<p>So, what exactly would everyone like the US to do? Disavow Pakistan? Declare war? Remove our support? Why? Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror – an important ally. Musharraf has walked a tightrope between extremists and those in favor of democracy. It’s not exactly rocket science to say, “I could see problems coming for Pakistan.” Anyone with any sense has seen this for years. </p>
<p>It still doesn’t explain what the US policy should be. Perhaps you’d like Congress to come out with some statement vilifying Musharraf, a la the Armenian Genocide controversy? Might as well get rid of any other remaining Muslin allies, right?</p>
<p>No sjmom. The neocons should have thought of this and gone after Osama with gusto. A safer world at a fraction of a cost.</p>
<p>So, simba, your educated opinion is that all of the US government people – CIA, all branches of the military, Secretary of Defense, those who work at the Pentagon – just decided to give Bin Laden a pass? Give me a break. Just because things don’t always work out the way we’d like, doesn’t mean people haven’t done everything they could to make it happen. Or that people haven’t died or lost family members in the effort.</p>
<p>Do you really think that only the “neocons” (you might actually benefit from looking up the origins of this term, by the way – it’s not really the evil empire you portray) who have tried to capture or kill Bin Laden? </p>
<p>This simplistic, single-thread, politicized point of view just makes this country weaker. Your total disrespect for the men and women who defend the US makes me sick.</p>
<p>The problem is, there can be no U.S. policy. Amplified support for Musharraf will do him no good in a domestic emergency, and will only weaken the United States’ already weakened foreign influence. Removing our support, obviously, will turn Pakistan neutral or against us, but if Musharraf is ousted by the very extremists you cite, that is inevitable anyway. Bhutto is a controversial figure in Pakistan, and is not an obvious successor to Musharraf. </p>
<p>I hate to see the Armenian Genocide resolution being posed as a straw man for the Democrats’ failure to properly read foreign policy. The Democratic leadership has been warned about Turkey for months – especially in regards to the PKK and northern Iraq. One of the possible points of contention that was raised was the Armenian Genocide resolution, which has been lingering around the halls of Capitol Hill for an eternity, now. Turkey’s connection of the Armenian Genocide resolution and its strategic role in Iraq is merely a sign that the Erdogan government would be willing to leverage whatever it can against the United States. To quickly point out the genocide resolution as a method of alienating U.S.-Muslim allies is a bit dubious in itself.</p>
<p>Then how do you explain their naivete in putting forth that resolution? Either they were incredibly stupid or they had another agenda. It’s hard to see which it was. Even Pelosi backed down faster than you can say, “I don’t get it.”</p>
<p>“This simplistic, single-thread, politicized point of view just makes this country weaker.”</p>
<p>You would not understand. </p>
<p>Conservatives are not known for thinking in broader global sense.</p>
<p>The naivete which you speak of is the minor fact that the resolution enjoyed the co-sponsorship of nearly half of the U.S. House. (If not more). The Democratic leadership (while the Speaker can fast-track a bill, bills typically presented through the standard method are brought up by the Majority Leader) decided that it was a relevant issue and it was brought forward, with bipartisan support. If a bill receives X amount of co-sponsors, then it is brought up for consideration. Suddenly Turkey, having come to the realization that this non-binding condemnation might actually go through, threw everything it could to shake the Members. And they flinched. I would not rule this out to stupidity (remember, it was both R and D members alike) so much as a game of chicken, and the Members (along with the Bush White House, whose foreign policy is so ineffective that they have little to leverage with the Turkish government… no, not even foreign aid, especially on the brink of Turkey’s full accession into the EU), flinched first.</p>
<p>The Bush White House was quick to blame Speaker Pelosi for being responsible for this foreign policy fumble, but she’s been responsible for several diplomatic feats that the Bush White House has never thought to consider.</p>
<p>P.S. 210 co-sponsors, including names like Sensenbrenner, Hunter, etc.
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00106:@@@P]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00106:@@@P)</p>
<p>sjmom2329 said:
</p>
<p>I don’t see where anybody said that. There’s certainly lots of Bush-bashing and Administration-Micking, but I really really don’t think anyone has denigrated the troops themselves.</p>
<p>Actually, now that I reread this – did you mean the troops? Or did you mean the administration??</p>
<p>Maybe no one noticed that my sister and her dear husband are in Islamabad. maybe no one cares, but this is not a good thing.</p>
<p>sorry bethie. I should have said something, but it skipped my mind. I hope they can get out soon before the situation worsens further.</p>